On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:45:18 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

krw wrote:

The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

That explains a lot, you are delusional...

No, you're just plain stupid as a stump.

You simply cannot make a legal claim based on whether something was an
"accident."

The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.

I think because their was no intent it was an accident. Webster agrees
with me.

Intent has nothing to do with it, idiot. The fact is that someone
died in the commission of a crime, making it felony manslaughter (at
least). The little point that royalty can get away with such things
doesn't make it any less of a crime.